LETTERS TO THE EDITOR, Aug. 17
Leadership needed in WW planning
To the editor:
The brouhaha over the proposed redevelopment of the Princeton Junction train station area vividly demonstrates why America is a representative democracy. Does anyone actually believe that a town more than a few hundred people could come to a consensus over a project this large without seriously alienating wide swaths of the electorate?
And the current complaints of the Planning Board over its lack of involvement in the redevelopment process boggle the mind. This project didn’t start yesterday – why didn’t we hear complaints at the beginning of the process, when roles and responsibilities should have been assigned, and the whole endeavor planned out?
One can easily see why Hillier got so frustrated – and totally understand his comments about how having the whole town as a client significantly complicates things.
Here’s something that our elected officials can clip out and put on their fridges for future reference:
1) Gather community input first;
2) Take some responsibility and actively guide town projects, based on your understanding of the will of the people, coupled with your sense of what’s in the town’s best interests.
It’s called leadership. It’s why we elected you in the first place to represent our needs and wishes.
Eric A. Sohn
Windsor Pond Road
West Windsor
Institute ignores battlefield facts
To the editor:
We are not surprised that the Institute for Advanced Study wishes to proceed with its housing project. What concerns us is that they do seem to ignore their own recently published study that confirms what we have been saying for years: a battle took place on that piece of land. An important battle that turned the American Revolution around, from defeat to victory.
The study that was prepared for the Institute, "Cultural Resource Survey and Assessment of Effects" prepared by The Louis Berger Group, states quite clearly that archeological artifacts (54 pieces) pertaining to the Battle of Princeton were found on the Institute’s project land. This then, is scientific evidence that fighting took place there, not wishful fantasy. In addition, friendly archeologists have stated that they think hundreds of battle artifacts still lie buried in the ground. Shall we ignore that?
The second question is, what is our great neighbor going to do with their plot of our tangible history now that they know so much more? By extension, what is the community going to do now that they too have this new knowledge about this great American episode that lies under their feet?
Of course Princeton Battlefield Society regrets that we have this large disagreement with the Institute for Advanced Study. We do, however, confirm our commitment to our mission, which is to preserve, enhance and educate. We have accepted it, that it is our duty to the citizens of Princeton, New Jersey and the United States to do our best to preserve this part of our collective legacy. Therefore, we will continue to dialogue, with the Institute, with the citizens and with their representatives in government. There is no day too difficult and no night too long when it comes to our Cause: preserving Princeton Battlefield in its totality.
Laura Crockett, vice-president
Princeton Battlefield Society
Mercer Road
Princeton
Entire battlefield needs protection
To the editor:
In Tuesday’s article, "Institute’s housing plan remains firm", the Institute of Advanced Study states that "the land is not immediately on or adjacent to the Princeton Battlefield State Park, and a 200-foot buffer and an existing row of dense hedges will separate the homes from the Battlefield’s border."
However, that isn’t the only issue the Princeton Battlefield Society has with building there. The fact is that that site was a major part of the Battle of Princeton. Just because it was not initially preserved and made part of the original state park, doesn’t mean it should be built on.
That particular piece of land the Institute wishes to build on is a key component to properly interpret and explain the Battle of Princeton and should be preserved for future generations so they can get a better understanding of what took place on January 3, 1777.
The Battle of Princeton was Washington’s first victory against the British Regulars and was a key event during the founding of our country. It is the final battle of the ten day campaign that is commonly referred to as the 10 Crucial Days and the Turning Point of the Revolution.
This ten-day period includes Washington Crossing the Delaware, the two battles of Trenton and culminated with the Battle of Princeton. In addition, General Hugh Mercer, namesake for Mercer County, died there after being mortally wounded during the battle.
It is vitally important that we protect this land for the memory of the men who died to secure our freedoms during the fight for independence and for the education of future generations.
Robert Rosetta
Presidential Boulevard
Toms River
Let’s preserve Greenview Avenue
To the editor:
In last week’s Packet there was an article about establishing new historic zones in the borough and the township in order to protect some distinctive neighborhoods from being torn down and transformed into McMansions. I would like to add my distinctive neighborhood to that list of protected neighborhoods – Greenview Ave one block east of Witherspoon St. along the cemetery.
My neighborhood is a little avenue of comfortable old houses, some owner-occupied and some rentals all interspersed with big old shade trees. Each house on the block has its own unique style and the block itself has a lot of history.
Unfortunately the neighborhood is in imminent danger of development by the architect, Robert Hillier, who has submitted plans for razing three adjacent houses the rental properties – in order to build a single monolithic structure housing 15 condos -11 of which will be priced at close to $1 million each.
He has tried to convince the neighbors of the favor he is doing the homeowners by improving our neighborhood in this way but there are many of us who are unconvinced that the modern and impersonal structure he has proposed and the loss of our rental neighbors with their diverse and creative lifestyles will actually be a good thing.
I’ve seen a jarring example of his idea of neighborhood improvement over on Quarry Street where he has built a towering duplex of vacant, blank faced modernity with a front lawn that is now a paved driveway, and the whole thing bearing no relationship at all to the rest of the comfortable working class neighborhood. It is listed as two luxury homes, which are still standing empty, and for sale.
I know that the "historic zone" policy is considered controversial but there needs to be a way to prevent builders from evicting less affluent people in order to make a "killing" in real estate.
Julie Fox
Greenview Avenue
Princeton
Loss of Laycock a sour note
To the editor:
One of the axioms of medicine is "Do No Harm". This might also be an axiom of any management team that is charged with operating a non-profit arts organization. When the Board of the Princeton Symphony let Mark Laycock slip through its fingers, for me, this comes under the heading of doing harm.
Mark Laycock has been an omnipresent part of the warp and woof of Princeton’s cultural life for the past 21 years. That will be no more. One of the reasons why Princeton has been such a vibrant musical community, why the quality of artistic life has been high here, is because of Maestro Laycock’s myriad of contributions.
I have been a member of the orchestra for the past 12 years, a violist. I have seen the quality of the group grow from that of a tidy little chamber orchestra that could whip up a tasty Haydn symphony, to a crack team of high quality musicians with extraordinary esprit de corps. Operating under tight ensemble conditions, we could play "Rite of Spring" one month, "La Mer" another month, & "Daphnis and Chloe" yet another month.
When an arts organization is chugging along nicely, providing exciting and stimulating performances for an often startled and appreciative audience, you don’t suddenly make a change, if you are the person and/or group running this organization.
It’s not as if it’s a corporation where "new blood" needs to be periodically brought in. If George Balanchine is creating great ballets and exciting audiences year after year for New York City Ballet and you are a board member, you let him do his thing and try to support him as best you can. If Leonard Bernstein is the conductor of the New York Philharmonic and you are a board member, you let him do his thing and try to support him as best you can. Now Mark Laycock will be someone else’s arts treasure and Princeton will be the poorer for it.
The reason that the Princeton Symphony is referred to in their marketing materials as New Jersey’s "virtuoso orchestra" is all the years of hard work that Laycock devoted to the ensemble. He was able to attract the finest musicians in the tri-state area who wanted to be a part of his vision.
It’s not as if the orchestra musicians and the conductor are Leggo-like pieces that can be snapped off and replaced with another piece just like it. Without Laycock, it will be a completely different orchestra. It will probably not attract as many of the loyal musicians who have played for so many years, providing for artistic consistency. More New York musicians will have to be used, making it less of a New Jersey orchestra, and more money will have to be spent on transportation. And the passion that was the hallmark of each performance, that made us the envy around the state and the standard bearer for New Jersey artistic excellence, will be no more. Is this the orchestra Princeton wants?
Clifford Young
Columbus Avenue
Trenton

